Talk:Bayesian programming

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 23 November 2013 by reviewer Dodger67 (talk · contribs).

Statistics Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article is written as a personal opinion or reflection essay

I wrote the first version of this article as a starting basis.

I hope it summarizes the work and opinion of a community of people using "bayesian programming" as one of the possible approach in probabilistic modeling.

My purpose is that this community will contribute in the coming days to improve this article and make it more consensual and less "personal"

I thought it is an adequate starting point but I might be wrong as it is my first "long" contribution to wikipedia.

Erreip (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs additional citation

It is not clear for me at this point where this additional citations are needed.

The introduction has citations and numerous links to other wikipedia articles.
The formalism section has no citation but is suppose to be self sufficient as a formal presentation.
The example section has no citation but refers to other wikipedia articles that provide the required citation.
The applications and discussion section have numerous citations.

Could you detailed where you think additional citations are required. It would be a great help.

Erreip (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "self sufficient" on Wikipedia. Everything that is not blatantly obvious (such as "water is wet") must to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. None of those formulas are in the same league of obviousness as 1+1=2. Other wikipedia articles are never acceptable sources because they in turn may also have sourcing problems. College-level textbooks are probably the type of sources this article needs. You must always assumethat your reader knows very little or even nothing at all about the subject. You can get specialist help at WT:WikiProject Statistics, I know less than nothing at all about this stuff. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is an orphan

I agree that at that point this article is orphan.

We will work on inserting some links to this article at some appropriate places in the coming days.

Erreip (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous changes

Notes section

Dodge67 remarks about the section Notes and discussion looking too academic is right.

However, the article needs a separation (new section) to separate the "application" section from all the notes and references.

90.2.245.105 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the word "Notes" - on Wikipedia it has a specific use - as a heading for a footnotes section, the content current under it are not footnotes, they look to me like various "explanations". As I said elsewhere, ask WikiProject Statistics for further help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section "bayesian inference engine"

I agree with Dodge67 that the first version of this section may have been inappropriate.

However, I think that such a section may have its place and interest in this article.

Don't you ?

90.2.245.105 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent refs?

Reading over the article, it looks like a good start. But I have concerns about independent sourcing and possible conflict of interest. 14 of the 27 sources have Bessière (there are two, J. and P., possibly related). At first glance, none of the non-Bessière references seem to be about Bayesian programming in particular. Are there sources on Bayesian programming independent of the research group involving Bessière? The reason this is important is that articles need to be based on multiple independent reliable sources, per WP:RS, for neutrality and notability of the topic, per WP:Notability. If is topic is not notable, the article covering it could be subject to deletion.

The second point is that P. Bessière is Pierre Bessière, whose name looks related to the article creator. If so, then Mr. Bessière has conflict of interest in editing this article and in particular sourcing primarily to papers on which he is an author. See Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines at WP:COI for details. It is best to declare a conflict of interest and allow other editors to look over the work and check neutrality. --Mark viking (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks Mark for these remarks.

I (Pierre Bessière) am the writer of the initial version of this article. May be I did not understand the rules of wikipedia and the article should be deleted.

Here is why I thought it could be legitimate and interesting to write such an article:

Concerning multiple independent reliable sources and notability: I thought that several tenth of papers in peer reviewed international journals in very different fields and more than twentieth PhD theses in various universities around Europe could be sufficient.
Concerning conflict of interest: I have absolutely no interest but a scientific one. If when you write about a subject that you know there is a conflict of interest, then there is one.

My only interest is to promote and discuss a scientific opinion shared by a community of several tenth of scientists around Europe and south America.

I would be pleased and interested to discuss and argue on any related scientific matter to make this article more interesting.

I am not qualify to discuss wikipedia rules and I am very serious when I said that the paper should be deleted if it infringes these rules.

Erreip (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]